3 ms·

This is a very dishonest, clickbait, bullshit claim. It’s a safety system, no one is spying on you. Many vehicles, IIRC including Teslas, already have this saf

This is a very dishonest, clickbait, bullshit claim. It’s a safety system, no one is spying on you. Many vehicles, IIRC including Teslas, already have this safety feature.

rogerrogerr 7mo ago
> If the AI determines you’re impaired (blood alcohol ≥0.08% or showing fatigue), it can prevent ignition startup or limit vehicle speed. Tesla does absolutely nothing like this. The closest things are that it'll kick you out of AP/FSD if you're screwing around with your phone, and it'll advise you use AP/FSD if you're driving manually and pinging between lane lines.
- mullingitover 7mo ago
  I’m talking about general attention tracking, but this is still just an extension of that and not “surveillance.” It’s also a hypothetical at this point because the system doesn’t exist, and there’s no consensus about whether it’s “fail open,” vulnerable to a centimeter square patch of electrical tape, or if it can randomly brick your car when it has errors. I would bet on the former.
  - rogerrogerr 7mo ago
    You'd certainly hope that manufacturers conclude bricking a car when this system doesn't work is an unacceptable level of legal exposure.
- mullingitover 7mo ago
  Oh and Telsa already detects fatigue[1], which is a form of driving while impaired, so yes it does do something like this. [1] https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_eu/GUID-65BF21B8-50C5-4FA5-86A4-DA363DCD0484.html https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_eu/GUID-65BF21B...
  - rogerrogerr 7mo ago
    > it'll advise you use AP/FSD if you're driving manually and pinging between lane lines.
like_any_other 7mo ago
> Many vehicles, IIRC including Teslas, already have this safety feature. That makes it worse, not better. Contrary to popular belief, "$BAD_THING is widespread" is not a defense of $BAD_THING.
- mullingitover 7mo ago
  What is the $BAD_THING about a simple warning to help drivers who are operating heavy machinery while impaired?
  - allarm 7mo ago
    You should read the article first.
    - mullingitover 7mo ago
      I already read the article. You are saying > Contrary to popular belief, "$BAD_THING is widespread" is not a defense of $BAD_THING. in response to my pointing out that Tesla does something like this now. So I'm asking: why do you believe that Tesla alerting drivers that it looks like they're driving while fatigued is a $BAD_THING? Your stance seem to be a nonsensical knee-jerk reaction against a simple safety feature, so I'm trying to understand your thinking. Do you also oppose anti-lock brakes?
      - allarm 7mo ago
        You should read the article. Also you should pay more attention, I wasn't saying that, you're responding to a wrong person.
  - like_any_other 7mo ago
    > a simple warning The technology that the NHTSA wants to mandate as soon as it is commercially available is not a warning, but "prevention". From the NHTSA report, page 3: "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected" - https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2026-03/Report-to-Congress-Advanced-Impaired-Driving-Prevention-Technology.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2026-03/Report-t... I don't know anything about Teslas - you were the one that wrote "Many vehicles, IIRC including Teslas, already have this safety feature". The $BAD_THING I was talking about is the one in the NHTSA report. I took you at your word that the two "safety features" were the same. My mistake.
charcircuit 7mo ago
It's not even required by 2027. The title isn't true. The 2027 deadline is for a standard to be created. The tech won't make it into cars for years after that.
vetrom 7mo ago
They do not, nowhere near what PL 117-58 specifies. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47383562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47383562 .
nerevarthelame 7mo ago
I agree that it's worth understanding that the law does not ask for any of this information to leave your car, so "federal surveillance tech" is a bit exaggerated. I have an unimpressive Honda Accord, and it will ding and display an alert if it suspects I'm drowsy. But this law would step beyond that. It does require that the car "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected." I'm not a transit safety expert, but that itself seems potentially dangerous - even just limiting speed, if it happens on a highway, could be difficult to handle. And of course, the detection systems will have false positives.
- mullingitover 7mo ago
  Since the rules don't seem to be in any real form of finality and the government largely exists at the pleasure of corporations these days, I am skeptical that Big Government is going to suddenly be forcing Elon to brick your CyberTruck if you have an imperial IPA. My prediction is that, in the end, this is simply going end up being a system to steer you off to the side of the road if you pass out at the wheel.
heliumtera 7mo ago
Really? Are you really this naive? Or just pretending to be?

This is a very dishonest, clickbait, bullshit claim. It’s a safety system, no one is spying on you. Many vehicles, IIRC including Teslas, already have this safety feature.

rogerrogerr 7mo ago

> If the AI determines you’re impaired (blood alcohol ≥0.08% or showing fatigue), it can prevent ignition startup or limit vehicle speed. Tesla does absolutely nothing like this. The closest things are that it'll kick you out of AP/FSD if you're screwing around with your phone, and it'll advise you use AP/FSD if you're driving manually and pinging between lane lines.

mullingitover 7mo ago
I’m talking about general attention tracking, but this is still just an extension of that and not “surveillance.” It’s also a hypothetical at this point because the system doesn’t exist, and there’s no consensus about whether it’s “fail open,” vulnerable to a centimeter square patch of electrical tape, or if it can randomly brick your car when it has errors. I would bet on the former.
- rogerrogerr 7mo ago
  You'd certainly hope that manufacturers conclude bricking a car when this system doesn't work is an unacceptable level of legal exposure.
mullingitover 7mo ago
Oh and Telsa already detects fatigue[1], which is a form of driving while impaired, so yes it does do something like this. [1] https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_eu/GUID-65BF21B8-50C5-4FA5-86A4-DA363DCD0484.html https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_eu/GUID-65BF21B...
- rogerrogerr 7mo ago
  > it'll advise you use AP/FSD if you're driving manually and pinging between lane lines.

like_any_other 7mo ago

> Many vehicles, IIRC including Teslas, already have this safety feature. That makes it worse, not better. Contrary to popular belief, "$BAD_THING is widespread" is not a defense of $BAD_THING.

mullingitover 7mo ago
What is the $BAD_THING about a simple warning to help drivers who are operating heavy machinery while impaired?
- allarm 7mo ago
  You should read the article first.
  - mullingitover 7mo ago
    I already read the article. You are saying > Contrary to popular belief, "$BAD_THING is widespread" is not a defense of $BAD_THING. in response to my pointing out that Tesla does something like this now. So I'm asking: why do you believe that Tesla alerting drivers that it looks like they're driving while fatigued is a $BAD_THING? Your stance seem to be a nonsensical knee-jerk reaction against a simple safety feature, so I'm trying to understand your thinking. Do you also oppose anti-lock brakes?
    - allarm 7mo ago
      You should read the article. Also you should pay more attention, I wasn't saying that, you're responding to a wrong person.
- like_any_other 7mo ago
  > a simple warning The technology that the NHTSA wants to mandate as soon as it is commercially available is not a warning, but "prevention". From the NHTSA report, page 3: "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected" - https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2026-03/Report-to-Congress-Advanced-Impaired-Driving-Prevention-Technology.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2026-03/Report-t... I don't know anything about Teslas - you were the one that wrote "Many vehicles, IIRC including Teslas, already have this safety feature". The $BAD_THING I was talking about is the one in the NHTSA report. I took you at your word that the two "safety features" were the same. My mistake.

charcircuit 7mo ago

It's not even required by 2027. The title isn't true. The 2027 deadline is for a standard to be created. The tech won't make it into cars for years after that.

vetrom 7mo ago

They do not, nowhere near what PL 117-58 specifies. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47383562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47383562 .

nerevarthelame 7mo ago

I agree that it's worth understanding that the law does not ask for any of this information to leave your car, so "federal surveillance tech" is a bit exaggerated. I have an unimpressive Honda Accord, and it will ding and display an alert if it suspects I'm drowsy. But this law would step beyond that. It does require that the car "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected." I'm not a transit safety expert, but that itself seems potentially dangerous - even just limiting speed, if it happens on a highway, could be difficult to handle. And of course, the detection systems will have false positives.

mullingitover 7mo ago
Since the rules don't seem to be in any real form of finality and the government largely exists at the pleasure of corporations these days, I am skeptical that Big Government is going to suddenly be forcing Elon to brick your CyberTruck if you have an imperial IPA. My prediction is that, in the end, this is simply going end up being a system to steer you off to the side of the road if you pass out at the wheel.

heliumtera 7mo ago

Really? Are you really this naive? Or just pretending to be?